Federal agencies are supposed to manage our public lands to protect their ecological health. That legal imperative means the agencies are supposed to follow science in their management decisions.

Yet as WWP’s supporters know all too well, federal agencies typically ignore science – and the law – in their management decisions, capitulating instead to resource industry demands.

Nowhere is this more true than the 160 million acres of western public lands on which BLM authorizes domestic livestock grazing. Very little of this landscape escapes grazing impacts, even today. The constant grazing has resulted in widespread loss of sagebrush, native grasses and other historic habitats; destruction of streams, springs, and wet meadows; and a downward spiral of many species like sage grouse, redband trout, pygmy rabbit, and a host of others.

These effects are widely documented in the scientific literature – yet are ignored by BLM in its management decisions. The result is unlawful agency action, as several of our recent lawsuits have established.

Keeping The “Public” In Our Public Lands

In one of our biggest wins to date, Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the Idaho federal court ruled in June that BLM violated several federal laws when it adopted new grazing regulations in July 2006; and he permanently enjoined BLM from ever using the new regulations.

The Bush Administration adopted the new regulations as a favor to western ranchers and their political allies, mainly to gut existing requirements that BLM is supposed to protect watershed health and other ecological values on public lands from grazing damage. The regulations also would have excluded the public from most grazing management decisions – including BLM’s issuance of grazing permits – and would given livestock operators new ownership and control over public lands water rights and range projects.

In a scathing decision, Judge Winmill reversed the new regulations, finding that BLM ignored scientific literature – and even the advice of its own experts – when it claimed the regulation changes would have no adverse ecological effects. To the contrary, Judge Winmill noted, the new regulations would cause longterm harm to many sensitive resources including uplands and streams, as well as fish and wildlife populations, which BLM wrongly failed to disclose to the public.

In addition to ignoring science, the court also held that BLM violated the law in its effort to exclude the public from grazing management decisions across the West. Judge Winmill emphasized that public input cannot “be jettisoned simply to reduce the agency’s workload,” and he found that BLM was arbitrary and capricious in failing to acknowledge the important role that public input plays in improving BLM’s grazing management decisions.

This case has national significance – not only in protecting 160 million acres of public lands in the West, but in affirming that the health of our public lands depends on scientific management and strong public involvement.

“Conclusive Proof” That BLM Ignores Science At Nickel Creek Trial.

We also won another recent victory underscoring the fact that BLM does not manage livestock grazing on public lands according to scientific principles – thus allowing unacceptable resource damage to continue, in violation of law.

This win involves the 75,000 acre Nickel Creek allotment, which is part of BLM’s Owyhee Resource Area in southwestern Idaho. Nickel Creek features stunning canyons, large upland habitats, and a host of important species including bighorn sheep, sage grouse, and redband trout.

Unlike most of our cases, which are brought in federal court, the Nickel Creek case involved a 15-day trial before an Administrative Law Judge in the Department of Interior. We used WWP experts Dr. John Carter and Katie Fite to present detailed scientific information about the harms that grazing has caused to the public lands and natural resources of the Nickel Creek allotment. We also explained the modern scientific principles relating to grazing management, which BLM claims it follows – but in fact does not.

In a 125-page decision issued in September, the Administrative Law Judge held that WWP’s evidence was “overwhelming” and “conclusively proved” that BLM violated modern range science in its management of the Nickel Creek allotment. Among his specific findings, the judge ruled that:

• The “overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence” establishes that setting the correct stocking rate is the most important step in proper grazing management. The judge ruled that BLM thus wrongly attempted to rely on a complex rest-rotation grazing system, instead of cutting livestock numbers to improve conditions on the allotment.
• BLM “relied on inadequate utilization and forage production data” in setting its stocking rates, while “WWP offered convincing evidence” that BLM has allowed excessive livestock utilization of native vegetation, causing damage to plant vigor and habitat conditions.
• The “preponderance of the evidence” also showed that BLM’s grazing scheme would not make even “limited improvement” to achieve the ecological standards for rangeland health on the allotment.
• BLM violated NEPA by failing to given serious consideration to either a “light grazing” or “no grazing” alternative, either of which offers much better ecological improvement. The judge ordered BLM to implement one of these alternatives in 2008, if it has not adopted a new and lawful grazing decision before then.

We believe this case is unprecedented in putting BLM’s basic grazing management on trial – and in establishing conclusively that BLM is violating the basic “range management” principles that are taught at schools around the West.

We will now be presenting similar challenges to equally inadequate BLM grazing decisions elsewhere in Idaho and other western states.

Laird Lucas is Executive Director of Advocates for the West. He lives in Boise, Idaho.